Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abolitionists: what do you really want?

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:12:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
More a question than an argument. I see a lot of conflicting viewpoints about abolition. I'm more interested in how you think abolishing the presidency will make life better for you on this site.

1. Is it lesser drama? For some people, this seems to be the reason to support abolition while others say that's not the reason. If yes, how does having elections every six months on whether the presidency should stay or go bring lesser drama than elections about who should be president? This election cycle is an example of the same thing happening every six months (unless you propose electing bench as a "permanent" president who does nothing) which I don't think most people would accept.

2. Is it the programs that the president runs? You don't want the president to post updates, or reach out to new members or do anything the president does? Okay. But how does that hurt you? In what way does the bsh1 posting an "update" make you so upset that you feel it absolutely should never happen?

3. Is it because you think the presidency is useless? So, what? How is this hurting you to the point where ignoring it isn't enough?

4. Insert reasons here. I want to know how exactly the presidency is hurting you and how your life will improve if it's gone.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,848
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:13:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:12:58 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
More a question than an argument. I see a lot of conflicting viewpoints about abolition. I'm more interested in how you think abolishing the presidency will make life better for you on this site.

1. Is it lesser drama? For some people, this seems to be the reason to support abolition while others say that's not the reason. If yes, how does having elections every six months on whether the presidency should stay or go bring lesser drama than elections about who should be president? This election cycle is an example of the same thing happening every six months (unless you propose electing bench as a "permanent" president who does nothing) which I don't think most people would accept.

2. Is it the programs that the president runs? You don't want the president to post updates, or reach out to new members or do anything the president does? Okay. But how does that hurt you? In what way does the bsh1 posting an "update" make you so upset that you feel it absolutely should never happen?

3. Is it because you think the presidency is useless? So, what? How is this hurting you to the point where ignoring it isn't enough?

4. Insert reasons here. I want to know how exactly the presidency is hurting you and how your life will improve if it's gone.

The poll admin.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:26:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:23:47 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Abolitionism isn't hurting you, so why don't you just ignore it?

That doesn't answer any of the questions I asked.

I can list out the presidency has benefited the site. I can point to how the president can potentially reach out to Juggle, help new members, organize tournament, be a liason with the mod, encourage voting, and so on and so forth. Either the president benefits the site or at worst, they are completely useless. What are the possible negatives here?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:28:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:26:35 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:23:47 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Abolitionism isn't hurting you, so why don't you just ignore it?

That doesn't answer any of the questions I asked.

Yes it does. You're curious as to why the abolitionists don't just ignore the parts of the site they don't like.

You are against abolitionism, yet you feel compelled to investigate and comment on it. So, look into your own motivations. Why don't YOU ignore parts of the site you don't like? Answer that quesiton for yourself and you'll have answered it for others.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:30:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Good thread, I am equally interested in seeing these questions answered.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:31:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:28:40 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:26:35 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:23:47 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Abolitionism isn't hurting you, so why don't you just ignore it?

That doesn't answer any of the questions I asked.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't. How is the presidency hurting anyone at all? How is your response an answer to that question?

What are the negatives of the presidency? In what way is it possible for the president to have a negative impact on the site?

You are against abolitionism, yet you feel compelled to investigate and comment on it. So, look into your own motivations. Why don't YOU ignore parts of the site you don't like? Answer that quesiton for yourself and you'll have answered it for others.

"Abolitionism" isn't a thing that's analogous to the presidency. What "abolitionism" means is "let's remove the presidency." Why? Show me a scenario where the presidency is hurting the site rather than oscillating between "helpful" and "neutral/useless."
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:34:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:31:43 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:28:40 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:26:35 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:23:47 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Abolitionism isn't hurting you, so why don't you just ignore it?

That doesn't answer any of the questions I asked.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

How is the presidency hurting anyone at all?

How is abolitionism hurting anyone at all?

How is your response an answer to that question?

How is yours an answer to mine?

What are the negatives of the presidency?

What are the negatives of abolitionism?

In what way is it possible for the president to have a negative impact on the site?

In what way is it possible for an abolitionist to have a negative impact on the site?

You are against abolitionism, yet you feel compelled to investigate and comment on it. So, look into your own motivations. Why don't YOU ignore parts of the site you don't like? Answer that quesiton for yourself and you'll have answered it for others.

"Abolitionism" isn't a thing that's analogous to the presidency.

I didn't say it was. I didn't draw a comparison between abolitionism and the presidency. I drew a comparison between your response to abolitionism and your perception of abolitionist responses to the presidency.

What "abolitionism" means is "let's remove the presidency."

Hey, something we can agree on!

Why?

Why not?

Show me a scenario where the presidency is hurting the site rather than oscillating between "helpful" and "neutral/useless."

No thank you. I decline your command.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:40:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:34:16 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
"Abolitionism" isn't a thing that's analogous to the presidency.

I didn't say it was. I didn't draw a comparison between abolitionism and the presidency. I drew a comparison between your response to abolitionism and your perception of abolitionist responses to the presidency.

You are pretending like it is. You are repeating my questions back to me and substituting "abolitionism" in the places where I said "presidency." That suggests that you think they are two equally analogous things.

I'm saying the status quo is either positive or neutral. You are advocating that we change the status quo. I'm asking why we should do that? What are the negatives?

We're not arguing for two different things. We are arguing for and against one thing the presidency. I showed the positives of the presidency. If you want to argue meaningfully, make a case for its negatives.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:43:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:41:06 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
https://imgflip.com...

Semantics aside - I'm still asking you a direct question that you haven't been able to answer. How is the presidency hurting you?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:44:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:40:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:34:16 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
"Abolitionism" isn't a thing that's analogous to the presidency.

I didn't say it was. I didn't draw a comparison between abolitionism and the presidency. I drew a comparison between your response to abolitionism and your perception of abolitionist responses to the presidency.

You are pretending like it is. You are repeating my questions back to me and substituting "abolitionism" in the places where I said "presidency." That suggests that you think they are two equally analogous things.

I'm suggesting that how people respond to them are analogous.

I'm saying the status quo is either positive or neutral. You are advocating that we change the status quo. I'm asking why we should do that? What are the negatives?

One of the questions you asked is why abolitionists don't just ignore the presidency and things involved with it. My response is to ask you why you don't just ignore abolitionists. You feel compelled to question them and deal with the movement rather than ignore it. The implication is that if you can know your own motivations here you will have better insight into abolitionist motivations than text on a screen from random strangers.

We're not arguing for two different things. We are arguing for and against one thing the presidency. I showed the positives of the presidency. If you want to argue meaningfully, make a case for its negatives.

I'm not interested in debating the merits of abolitionism to you.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:46:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:43:45 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:41:06 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
https://imgflip.com...

Semantics aside - I'm still asking you a direct question that you haven't been able to answer. How is the presidency hurting you?

I don't feel compelled to respond to question when the underlying rationale includes the stupid notion that lack of desire is equivilent to lack of ability ("haven't been able to").

Then again, I don't believe you're that stupid. But, I'm also not compelled to answer questions based on feigned stupidity either.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:49:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
To put it bluntly, I'm not interested in answering these questions, debating the issue, or justifying any position to you.

I simple see hyprocisy in questioning abolitionists not ignoring the presidency when you could simply ignore the abolutionists. It's low-hanging fruit from my POV, provding the biggest bang for the least amount of energy.

And I've expended all the energy I care to.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:56:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:44:15 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
I'm suggesting that how people respond to them are analogous.
One of the questions you asked is why abolitionists don't just ignore the presidency and things involved with it. My response is to ask you why you don't just ignore abolitionists. You feel compelled to question them and deal with the movement rather than ignore it. The implication is that if you can know your own motivations here you will have better insight into abolitionist motivations than text on a screen from random strangers.

That's true but both camps are coming from different mindsets. From the perspective of a pro-presidency member, whatever benefits they get from the presidency are being taken away. I want there to be the chance for someone to passionately do good things for the site. I've seen how innomen turned the presidency into something much more than it used to be. I've seen how Airmax used it as a platform to be an official mod for Juggle. I've seen TUF invest his own personal time and effort into making the site better. I want someone to have that chance to do good things. Either they do something wonderful or they are useless and nothing happens. Is there a possibility that they would do something bad? If so, what is it? If not, what's the point of launching a campaign to eliminate the presidency and ENSURE that the "president" does absolutely nothing?

So, on one hand, we have people benefiting from the presidency which will no longer happen if it is abolished. So, I won't ignore abolition.

On the other hand, what are the harms from the presidency that will be removed by abolishing it to the point that ignoring the presidency is insufficient? If there are indeed harms, then I can understand the mindset of the abolitionist as it relates to my own.

But the question is: what are these harms?
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:02:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
So far, no logical answers to the questions posed in the OP. I kind of expected it, but time will tell if anyone changes their mind and decides answer.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:07:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:12:58 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
More a question than an argument. I see a lot of conflicting viewpoints about abolition. I'm more interested in how you think abolishing the presidency will make life better for you on this site.

1. Is it lesser drama? For some people, this seems to be the reason to support abolition while others say that's not the reason.

LESSER drama is a reason people support abolition, whereas before you implied people support abolition because they believed it would ELIMINATE drama, which I nor anyone else believes or have campaigned on..... Presidential elections have been causing unnecessary drama long before abolitionism even became a thing, as anyone who remembers the jimtimmy sagas can recount..... If the Presidency is done away with, so with it go threads of people announcing they are running 3 months before an election is even scheduled to happen, creation and bumping of threads featuring same generic platforms over and over, all the troll candidates who spam their own campaigns, issues with voter requirements and alleged election rigging, etc......

The Convention system will not be immune to drama, and nobody claims that it will be. Im sure you and TUF are already committed to stirring up as much drama as possible should Conventions be implemented just because of your own shallow devotion to the presidency..... But the argument here is that under the Convention system there will be an overall improvement in (reducing) the levels of drama on the site, whether it be by reducing the window for drama to occur in the first place (Explained in next response), or by steering drama more towards a productive issue (debating proposals to reform the site rather than debating the past conduct of a presidential candidate).....

TLDR: Drama would be reduced under the new system, but not flat out eliminated like Pro-presidency hacks claim abolitionists believe.

If yes, how does having elections every six months on whether the presidency should stay or go bring lesser drama than elections about who should be president?

For starters, DDO Conventions are not 6-month referendums on bringing back the presidency or not like you imply. Only when someone makes a proposal to bring back the presidency would the Convention then become a referendum on bringing back the presidency, and that would be in addition to the other proposals people make that would actually reform the site in some way or fashion..... Presidential elections are mostly about the presidency, but Convention systems are geared more towards measures of reform, since the conduct and history of the person making the proposal is not called into question the way that presidential candidates' are when they announce they are running.

Second, because DDO Conventions eliminate the need for someone to announce proposals three months in advance like we see with candidates in the presidential election, the very window of opportunity for drama to arise shrinks considerably, from months before the Convention to weeks at the most. A convention proposal made three months in advance of the Convention itself will end up being buried under other threads and forgotten about by the time the Convention starts, giving people a hell of an incentive to wait in making a proposal so that it is fresh in everyone's minds when the time to vote comes..... This stands in contrast with the presidency system that often rewards those who declare they are running monstrously earlier than everyone else.

2. Is it the programs that the president runs?

Under the Convention system, if you like your program, you can keep it..... The talk regarding programs is that program creation is the limit to which the presidency has any influence left on the site, and many people believe such programs have a minimal effect if any at all..... If the most powerful aspect of the presidency has little impact on the site, then it is only an argument for why the presidency is useless and why an alternative system that could yield better results is worth exploring that much more.

3. Is it because you think the presidency is useless? So, what? How is this hurting you to the point where ignoring it isn't enough?

Because a better system and a better option exists (DDO Conventions) than clinging to the same system that yields no benefits and has yielded no benefits for years now (Presidency). Also see previous response regarding the huge amount of spam that presidential elections can create.

4. Insert reasons here. I want to know how exactly the presidency is hurting you and how your life will improve if it's gone.

1) The fundamental problem with your stance is that you believe its only rational to abolish the presidency if the presidency is causing harm or is a net negative. Thats not true though.... If you have two tools, where the tool you own doesnt have any use, but the second tool you are considering buying has slightly more uses, then you dont get to say that people have to stick with the first tool just because its not damaging or negative in some fashion.....

2) Another argument for replacing the Presidency with Conventions is that it cuts out the middle-man = The President.... In Conventions, users themselves can propose ideas for reforming the site and have other offer input, and an environment is created to foster user-ideas for reform that does not exist with the presidency.... In the presidential system, a user goes to the President or someone in his staff with an idea, they say they'll look into it and try to make it work, and then 90% of the time thats the end of the road.

In the Convention system though, users take their ideas straight to the public and hash it out for all to see, before a site wide vote is held on the user's proposal and the proposals of others as well. The presidency has the power to pitch an idea to the public for a referendum, but the Convention system streamlines the process, making the process of reform more efficient by cutting out the middle-man who only serves as an obstruction = The Presidency.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:09:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:02:03 PM, TUF wrote:
So far, no logical answers to the questions posed in the OP. I kind of expected it, but time will tell if anyone changes their mind and decides answer.

Try waiting for longer than an hour for someone to respond to a thread before jumping to conclusions and declaring victory like a shallow hack.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:16:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:09:02 PM, imabench wrote:
At 6/22/2016 7:02:03 PM, TUF wrote:
So far, no logical answers to the questions posed in the OP. I kind of expected it, but time will tell if anyone changes their mind and decides answer.

Try waiting for longer than an hour for someone to respond to a thread before jumping to conclusions and declaring victory like a shallow hack.

Well you've been around, and haven't elected to answer the questions either, and that is pretty telling as the spokesman for the largest abolition campaign, isn't it? You've been online for the past hour, and are probably the best person to answer these questions, and probably the person I am most interested in seeing answer them. I think people voting for you are more sold on *you* then your platform, but if people want to justify their belief in your platform, I happily await their responses to the OP.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:17:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:09:02 PM, imabench wrote:
At 6/22/2016 7:02:03 PM, TUF wrote:
So far, no logical answers to the questions posed in the OP. I kind of expected it, but time will tell if anyone changes their mind and decides answer.

Try waiting for longer than an hour for someone to respond to a thread before jumping to conclusions and declaring victory like a shallow hack.

Nevermind my last response, I didn't see yet that you had posted your response to the Op.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:21:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:07:52 PM, imabench wrote:
I won't quote the entire wall since it seems to be making a few specific points:

1. Lesser drama - why can't we simply have a moratorium on campaigning until two-three weeks before the election?

2. Presidency should be abolished because the convention system is better, not because it causes any actual harm.

Why can't conventions co-exist with a presidency?

What are the sort of things that members are going to have conventions about? If the functionality of the presidency is useless and the conventions replace the presidency, aren't the conventions going to be discussing useless stuff anyways?
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:43:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:21:49 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/22/2016 7:07:52 PM, imabench wrote:
I won't quote the entire wall since it seems to be making a few specific points:

1. Lesser drama - why can't we simply have a moratorium on campaigning until two-three weeks before the election?

1) Its borderline censorship

2) Some people wont agree to the moratorium (In this election alone we saw Wylted violate a moratorium on campaigning that his own VP signed with DK 2 days earlier)

3) Troll candidates certainly wont obey a moratorium and instead seize on the opportunity to steer the spotlight more towards themselves

4) The only person who could actually enforce a moratorium is Airmax by deleting any threads relating to the presidency, which I think we can agree would be a giant waste of his valuable time.

5) There's nothing inherently 'illegal' about posting presidency threads months before an election starts, meaning there's no jurisdiction to delete such threads, and we all know how much Airmax loves to have jurisdiction when doing what he does

2. Presidency should be abolished because the convention system is better, not because it causes any actual harm.

Why can't conventions co-exist with a presidency?

They can, but no President would never implement them. If Conventions are installed, then the presidency itself transitions from a figure-head position to a baby-sitter position since the ability to drive reform has just been outsourced to Conventions..... A Presidency who installs Conventions would just be bringing the site one step closer towards abolitionism by showing that the site can function without the Presidency by simply relying on Conventions instead.

What are the sort of things that members are going to have conventions about? If the functionality of the presidency is useless and the conventions replace the presidency, aren't the conventions going to be discussing useless stuff anyways?

No, because there are valid ideas for reforms to the site people can pitch in a Convention that often dont make it into fruition under the presidential system, due to both the inefficiency of the presidency to install reforms, and the lack of a system for people to hammer out proposed reforms into a finished product for people to then vote on......
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:59:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:07:52 PM, imabench wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:12:58 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
More a question than an argument. I see a lot of conflicting viewpoints about abolition. I'm more interested in how you think abolishing the presidency will make life better for you on this site.

1. Is it lesser drama? For some people, this seems to be the reason to support abolition while others say that's not the reason.

LESSER drama is a reason people support abolition, whereas before you implied people support abolition because they believed it would ELIMINATE drama, which I nor anyone else believes or have campaigned on..... Presidential elections have been causing unnecessary drama long before abolitionism even became a thing, as anyone who remembers the jimtimmy sagas can recount..... If the Presidency is done away with, so with it go threads of people announcing they are running 3 months before an election is even scheduled to happen, creation and bumping of threads featuring same generic platforms over and over, all the troll candidates who spam their own campaigns, issues with voter requirements and alleged election rigging, etc......

I am not buying the vigilantism in your saving drama from the site, seeing as you yourself are known for your being a major proponent of it on the site. That's not an insult, just a truism. That aside, I don't see why drama is such a bad thing if both parties are participating in it (not one side just slandering the other side with insults because they don't have a logical argument to make).

The Convention system will not be immune to drama, and nobody claims that it will be. 'Im sure you and TUF are already committed to stirring up as much drama as possible should Conventions be implemented just because of your own shallow devotion to the presidency.....

You are wrong here. Despite being a VP on DK's ticket and supporting the presidency, I am not as devoted to it as you might think. I don't see the logic behind abolitionism, but I am utterly indifferent as to whether it is abolished or kept around. I am serving as DK's VP more out of respect for him as a person then being overly passionate about the presidency.

But the argument here is that under the Convention system there will be an overall improvement in (reducing) the levels of drama on the site, whether it be by reducing the window for drama to occur in the first place (Explained in next response), or by steering drama more towards a productive issue (debating proposals to reform the site rather than debating the past conduct of a presidential candidate).....

The fact of the matter is that not all elections are super dramatic. Bsh1 made a post about this a month or two ago, and I never saw a logical response to it. There have been a couple brutal elections, but overall the drama is relevant to the members running and personal beef they create with each other. The larz/Blade/someoneelse election was pretty clean. Even when I originally ran for president against you/thett before bsh1 took your spot as VP, that election was for the most part clean between the candidates. There was side drama between me/YYW and Heineken/yourself. But the drama between me and YYW eased away easily enough, and Heineken had a grudge against you from another thread, and was really just using your position as another excuse to argue and be dramatic with you. Do the elections themselves actually stem the drama themselves, or is it more just personal beef members have with each other?

More importantly, why is drama bad? It can be pretty fun to read sometimes when there's good logical context to it. Drama is good for the site, it holds us together in a way. It's a debate site; it's inevitable that a bunch of hot headed people will clash ideas and that forum fights can stem from that. They have continued to happen regardless of elections, some with a bigger gravity than the elections drama has. I see no point in lessening the drama the elections bring.

Presidential elections are mostly about the presidency, but Convention systems are geared more towards measures of reform, since the conduct and history of the person making the proposal is not called into question the way that presidential candidates' are when they announce they are running.

This sounds like an overly complicated way to continue what the president can do already by having users approach him or her with ideas they want to implement. And I know that is your point "Why use the presidency for this", but is easily negated by "Why not use the presidency for this"? Seems easier to have a committed member in charge of making sure these programs work because it's his job.

2. Is it the programs that the president runs?

Under the Convention system, if you like your program, you can keep it..... The talk regarding programs is that program creation is the limit to which the presidency has any influence left on the site, and many people believe such programs have a minimal effect if any at all.....

I am sure many do. So? This isn't an active reason to nix the presidency who creates programs for those that do want them. Sure it's true people can keep programs sans the presidency, but there is no actual impact here to nix the presidency on this basis. Like the whole impact behind conventions is hinged on lessening drama to do what the presidency already does, and that doesn't seem very convincing at all.

If the most powerful aspect of the presidency has little impact on the site, then it is only an argument for why the presidency is useless and why an alternative system that could yield better results is worth exploring that much more.

Okay I don't see how conventions would "yield" better results. You need to substantiate this one a little more.

Because a better system and a better option exists (DDO Conventions) than clinging to the same system that yields no benefits and has yielded no benefits for years now (Presidency).

Highly subjective.

Also see previous response regarding the huge amount of spam that presidential elections can create.

You mean the Spam that you've also contributed to? People will find new ideas for threads to spam sans the presidency. People want their voice heard on a debate site.

1) The fundamental problem with your stance is that you believe its only rational to abolish the presidency if the presidency is causing harm or is a net negative. Thats not true though.... If you have two tools, where the tool you own doesnt have any use, but the second tool you are considering buying has slightly more uses, then you dont get to say that people have to stick with the first tool just because its not damaging or negative in some fashion.....

The problem here is that you haven't actually proven how conventions are a sharper tool than the presidency, and there isn't a lot of logical rational behind the belief that it will be either.

2) In Conventions, users themselves can propose ideas for reforming the site and have other offer input, and an environment is created to foster user-ideas for reform that does not exist with the presidency.... In the presidential system, a user goes to the President or someone in his staff with an idea, they say they'll look into it and try to make it work, and then 90% of the time thats the end of the road.

I am doubting your "90% of the time" statistic is based on real happenings, but that aside, people can create the program without the presidency. The presidency can't tell someone they can't make a program. The benefit of the presidency to the user if having it helped in getting attention on a more official level, and potentially ran by the administration other than the user who won't have to put the work in.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 8:21:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:59:04 PM, TUF wrote:
At 6/22/2016 7:07:52 PM, imabench wrote:

LESSER drama is a reason people support abolition, whereas before you implied people support abolition because they believed it would ELIMINATE drama, which I nor anyone else believes or have campaigned on..... Presidential elections have been causing unnecessary drama long before abolitionism even became a thing, as anyone who remembers the jimtimmy sagas can recount..... If the Presidency is done away with, so with it go threads of people announcing they are running 3 months before an election is even scheduled to happen, creation and bumping of threads featuring same generic platforms over and over, all the troll candidates who spam their own campaigns, issues with voter requirements and alleged election rigging, etc......

I am not buying the vigilantism in your saving drama from the site

Sounds more like your problem than mine.

But the argument here is that under the Convention system there will be an overall improvement in (reducing) the levels of drama on the site, whether it be by reducing the window for drama to occur in the first place (Explained in next response), or by steering drama more towards a productive issue (debating proposals to reform the site rather than debating the past conduct of a presidential candidate).....

The fact of the matter is that not all elections are super dramatic. Bsh1 made a post about this a month or two ago, and I never saw a logical response to it. There have been a couple brutal elections, but overall the drama is relevant to the members running and personal beef they create with each other. The larz/Blade/someoneelse election was pretty clean. Even when I originally ran for president against you/thett before bsh1 took your spot as VP, that election was for the most part clean between the candidates.

You pretty much cherry-picked examples of elections exclusively from when Juggle was still active on the site for your argument. Point to a clean election after Juggle became non-existent on the site, and Ill show you four more that were far from clean in response

More importantly, why is drama bad? It can be pretty fun to read sometimes when there's good logical context to it.

And the times when there isnt a logical contest to it it becomes trash and bickering, which is the kind of drama more attuned to presidential elections.

Presidential elections are mostly about the presidency, but Convention systems are geared more towards measures of reform, since the conduct and history of the person making the proposal is not called into question the way that presidential candidates' are when they announce they are running.

Seems easier to have a committed member in charge of making sure these programs work because it's his job.

The problem is that its not easy to find committed members to put in charge of things of this scale, since past presidents have had difficulty getting people to even participate in certain programs. How many people got scrubbed from the Voters Union for inactivity or for mentorship programs for inactivity? Under the Convention system, Airmax himself would be in charge of organizing the final Convention, and no one is more reliable or committed than he is.

Under the Convention system, if you like your program, you can keep it..... The talk regarding programs is that program creation is the limit to which the presidency has any influence left on the site, and many people believe such programs have a minimal effect if any at all.....

I am sure many do. So?

So the system I advocate preserves the one part of the presidency some people actually like (programs) while at the same time cutting down on negative drama and also establishing a more efficient means for passing reforms to the site.

If the most powerful aspect of the presidency has little impact on the site, then it is only an argument for why the presidency is useless and why an alternative system that could yield better results is worth exploring that much more.

Okay I don't see how conventions would "yield" better results. You need to substantiate this one a little more.

Its kinda hard to do that when the system was invented only three months earlier and only exists in theory....

Also see previous response regarding the huge amount of spam that presidential elections can create.

You mean the Spam that you've also contributed to? People will find new ideas for threads to spam sans the presidency. People want their voice heard on a debate site.

There will always be spam threads, there just wont be any spam threads regarding presidential elections or candidates which people are the most willing to see be eliminated

1) The fundamental problem with your stance is that you believe its only rational to abolish the presidency if the presidency is causing harm or is a net negative. Thats not true though.... If you have two tools, where the tool you own doesnt have any use, but the second tool you are considering buying has slightly more uses, then you dont get to say that people have to stick with the first tool just because its not damaging or negative in some fashion.....

The problem here is that you haven't actually proven how conventions are a sharper tool than the presidency, and there isn't a lot of logical rational behind the belief that it will be either.

Sure there is. Some people such as you and F-16 simply refuse to entertain it and push for others to ignore it.

2) In Conventions, users themselves can propose ideas for reforming the site and have other offer input, and an environment is created to foster user-ideas for reform that does not exist with the presidency.... In the presidential system, a user goes to the President or someone in his staff with an idea, they say they'll look into it and try to make it work, and then 90% of the time thats the end of the road.

I am doubting your "90% of the time" statistic is based on real happenings, but that aside, people can create the program without the presidency. The presidency can't tell someone they can't make a program. The benefit of the presidency to the user if having it helped in getting attention on a more official level

There is a way for people to have their programs recognized as 'official' under the convention system as well, so this argument is bunk
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 10:28:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:12:58 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
4. Insert reasons here. I want to know how exactly the presidency is hurting you and how your life will improve if it's gone.

Conventions might benefit the site, because the purpose of vote moderation, etc. is to create community-accepted standards. I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive to a presidency, though.

I honestly don't care. I might just vote Harder instead.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 10:29:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:21:49 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why can't conventions co-exist with a presidency?

This is a very good question, and I think they should co-exist.

But no campaign is running them. DK's "elective administration" still gives DK a lot of power.

The very definition of conventions is giving all the power the president currently has to the community, making the president a complete figurehead.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 1:23:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 8:21:55 PM, imabench wrote:
I am not buying the vigilantism in your saving drama from the site

Sounds more like your problem than mine.

Sounds like it's everyone's problem, really, if you get elected and drama isn't decreased. Which will undoubtedly be the case.

You pretty much cherry-picked examples of elections exclusively from when Juggle was still active on the site for your argument.

Not true, the blade/larz election Juggle wasn't active. They became inactive towards the end of my presidency.

Point to a clean election after Juggle became non-existent on the site, and Ill show you four more that were far from clean in response

I accept your challenge. Prior to the Airmax election, there wasn't drama (the presidency at that time was much less serious). After Cody_Franklin's election, the presidency was associated with mod powers, in which airmax got that handed down to him (also another non-dramatic election). During my run against you and thett3 we did away with passing on the mod powers, and that election wasn't dirty on a basis of the candidates being at each others necks. The election after ours was very non-dramatic (there was drama with larz that resulted him leaving the site, but it was exclusive of the election and was due to personal drama between members like YYW and a few others).

Let's see after that we had the election that was headed by Mikal and yourself, which did get dirty but not because of the other candidates. There was a sh1t storm of drama because of Mikal himself was running and was spamming thread's daily, but his opponents were very professional. There was no drama or dispute with Ore_ele short election after Mikal gave up the presidency. I wasn't active for the debatability election. Bsh1 and Wylted Election was the only other election that caused major drama that I can think of.

So at the end of the day this massive amount of drama that you think you are lessening comes from two elections, the Mikal election, and the most recent Bsh1 election. The conclusion I am drawing from all this, is that all this "election drama" really just stems from user beef with one another.

Even the "Drama" between DK and harder in this election was pretty mild and didn't last more than a couple of days. Sure they say the occassional passive aggressive comment at the other's expense, but that's not really drama that nix'ing the presidency will get rid of. In fact Harder literally said at one point that his whole purpose of running was because of his dislike of DK's campaign, and in the hangouts he publicly admits that he doesn't like him. So the drama in this election was caused by user beef, considering Harder has said a few times he supports you sans DK running (which makes his position extra ridiculous, but I digress).

I see absolutely no evidence that removing the presidency for conventions will remove drama.

More importantly, why is drama bad? It can be pretty fun to read sometimes when there's good logical context to it.

And the times when there isnt a logical contest to it it becomes trash and bickering, which is the kind of drama more attuned to presidential elections.

When it's just trash and bickering, is when the mods should get involved. What I mean by that is just when someone doesn't want to debate platforms but wants to resort to insults because this user hates the other user so bad. That conduct isn't accepted outside the election, and isn't caused because of the election. That takes responsibility away from the user in question being immature and participating in the trash and bickering.

Seems easier to have a committed member in charge of making sure these programs work because it's his job.

The problem is that its not easy to find committed members to put in charge of things of this scale, since past presidents have had difficulty getting people to even participate in certain programs.

I was talking about the president himself.

How many people got scrubbed from the Voters Union for inactivity or for mentorship programs for inactivity?

I scrubbed a few people that I am sure weren't even aware they were part of the union, other than that there is pretty active consistency now.

Under the Convention system, Airmax himself would be in charge of organizing the final Convention, and no one is more reliable or committed than he is.

A president should be equally reliable and committed.

So the system I advocate preserves the one part of the presidency some people actually like (programs) while at the same time cutting down on negative drama and also establishing a more efficient means for passing reforms to the site.

You still have yet to prove how these reforms would be more efficiently ran without a committed individual in charge of running them for his entire term, as opposed to a member who has an idea, but isn't committed to long term activity and eventually lets his program die.

Okay I don't see how conventions would "yield" better results. You need to substantiate this one a little more.

Its kinda hard to do that when the system was invented only three months earlier and only exists in theory....

If I am a project designer pitching an idea, generally I am going to go over in detail how it will work, and how it benefits people more than whatever project is already in place. Not just coming up with a fancy name "Conventions" telling people it will work just because, and hoping for the best.

You mean the Spam that you've also contributed to? People will find new ideas for threads to spam sans the presidency. People want their voice heard on a debate site.

There will always be spam threads, there just wont be any spam threads regarding presidential elections or candidates which people are the most willing to see be eliminated

By "people", I take it to mean just you. I mean there are plenty of forums that I wouldn't like to see spammed that get spammed daily.

I am getting relieved from post, I'll respond to the rest later.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 2:11:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 1:23:55 PM, TUF wrote:
At 6/22/2016 8:21:55 PM, imabench wrote:
I am not buying the vigilantism in your saving drama from the site

Sounds more like your problem than mine.

Sounds like it's everyone's problem, really, if you get elected and drama isn't decreased. Which will undoubtedly be the case.

Youre already jumping to conclusions regarding Conventions simply because of your own bias in favor of the presidency. Typical....

Point to a clean election after Juggle became non-existent on the site, and Ill show you four more that were far from clean in response

I accept your challenge. Prior to the Airmax election, there wasn't drama

The question was about elections AFTER Juggle became non-existent on the site, which happened well after all three of the Airmax elections.... Try to stay on topic

Let's see after that we had the election that was headed by Mikal and yourself, which did get dirty but not because of the other candidates. There was a sh1t storm of drama because of Mikal himself was running and was spamming thread's daily, but his opponents were very professional.

Is that how you remember it? lol. It appears you are distorting history. What ACTUALLY happened is that both sides were spamming threads daily, not just Mikal's side. It got bad enough to the point that I myself had to step in and make a thread apologizing for the spamming going on by both campaigns, which all the other major candidates then agreed to chill out with.....

Not only are you barely even answering the question in the first place, youre flat out lying about what actually happened in elections themselves now

There was no drama or dispute with Ore_ele short election after Mikal gave up the presidency.

Another lie... You completely skip over the fact that when Mikal tried to hand the presidency to someone outside his administration because he didnt want to be president anymore, users on the site went so crazy that Airmax himself had to step in and hold an emergency election, where Ore_Ele came out on top..... Ore_Ele himself then stepped down after rage-quitting from the position he found to be useless, making him the second president in a row to resign from the job maybe half-way through his term.... To claim there was no drama or deny the existence of any drama around the Presidency during the most turbulent time in the history of the presidency only shows how youre pushing a heavily edited/biased idea of how the presidency functions.

I see absolutely no evidence that removing the presidency for conventions will remove drama.

Thats because you seem to have a different version of history compared to what actually happened.

Seems easier to have a committed member in charge of making sure these programs work because it's his job.

The problem is that its not easy to find committed members to put in charge of things of this scale, since past presidents have had difficulty getting people to even participate in certain programs.

I was talking about the president himself.

Presidents themselves have quit from the job as president, while others take on so many tasks as president that they spread themselves too thin to be able to run an event like a DDO Convention.

So the system I advocate preserves the one part of the presidency some people actually like (programs) while at the same time cutting down on negative drama and also establishing a more efficient means for passing reforms to the site.

You still have yet to prove how these reforms would be more efficiently ran without a committed individual in charge of running them for his entire term, as opposed to a member who has an idea, but isn't committed to long term activity and eventually lets his program die.

Lol, the Convention system doesnt deprive programs from committed individuals who want to run them..... If someone wants to make and run a program, they are allowed to do so, and the Convention system even allows them to have their program be voted as 'official' to incentivize people to keep running their own program.... If however they tire of the program and dont want to run it anymore, they can hand it off to whoever they want, or they can end the program itself, and someone later could restart the same version of the program if they see some sort of value in it......

If I am a project designer pitching an idea, generally I am going to go over in detail how it will work, and how it benefits people more than whatever project is already in place.

Ive already made two 'walkthrough' threads about how conventions work, you just continue to ignore them as you do with any argument you dont agree with.

There will always be spam threads, there just wont be any spam threads regarding presidential elections or candidates, which people are the most willing to see be eliminated

By "people", I take it to mean just you.

I think everyone would like to see fewer spam threads on the main page, not just me. By all means though, keep changing the definitions of words themselves along with reality itself just to fit your own beliefs.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 3:17:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 2:11:13 PM, imabench wrote:
At 6/23/2016 1:23:55 PM, TUF wrote:
At 6/22/2016 8:21:55 PM, imabench wrote:
I am not buying the vigilantism in your saving drama from the site

Sounds more like your problem than mine.

Sounds like it's everyone's problem, really, if you get elected and drama isn't decreased. Which will undoubtedly be the case.

Youre already jumping to conclusions regarding Conventions simply because of your own bias in favor of the presidency. Typical....

Well you are not demonstrating properly that these will in fact work with my arguments that the presidency does better, so it's easy to not see how they will work.

Point to a clean election after Juggle became non-existent on the site, and Ill show you four more that were far from clean in response

I accept your challenge. Prior to the Airmax election, there wasn't drama

The question was about elections AFTER Juggle became non-existent on the site, which happened well after all three of the Airmax elections.... Try to stay on topic

And after Juggle went inactive we've had clean elections. So it's still on topic you just elected not to respond the rest, which I am taking as a concession.

Let's see after that we had the election that was headed by Mikal and yourself, which did get dirty but not because of the other candidates. There was a sh1t storm of drama because of Mikal himself was running and was spamming thread's daily, but his opponents were very professional.

Is that how you remember it? lol. It appears you are distorting history. What ACTUALLY happened is that both sides were spamming threads daily, not just Mikal's side. It got bad enough to the point that I myself had to step in and make a thread apologizing for the spamming going on by both campaigns, which all the other major candidates then agreed to chill out with.....

Sure both sides spammed threads, mikal spammed more. But that's beside the point. The point was about drama, and how much of that stemmed from mikal running, not so much about the spam. How about you try to stay on topic? ;-)

Not only are you barely even answering the question in the first place, youre flat out lying about what actually happened in elections themselves now

I didn't lie about anything and you haven't disputed what I said or even touched on the main point of this conversation. That drama stems from personal beef, not the elections themselves and that by blaming drama on the presidency you are detracting responsibility from the culprits of it themselves. You know the ones that engage in drama absent of being related to the presidency? ;-)

There was no drama or dispute with Ore_ele short election after Mikal gave up the presidency.

Another lie... You completely skip over the fact that when Mikal tried to hand the presidency to someone outside his administration because he didnt want to be president anymore, users on the site went so crazy that Airmax himself had to step in and hold an emergency election, where Ore_Ele came out on top..... Ore_Ele himself then stepped down after rage-quitting from the position he found to be useless, making him the second president in a row to resign from the job maybe half-way through his term....

That isn't "drama" so your still off topic. Someone rage quitting the presidency because the job has changed away from juggle interaction doesn't mean there was site wide dispute over the existence of the role lol.

To claim there was no drama or deny the existence of any drama around the Presidency during the most turbulent time in the history of the presidency only shows how youre pushing a heavily edited/biased idea of how the presidency functions.

I'm not denying it's existence around the presidency. I am denying the claim that most elections were dramatic, and I'm downplaying the idea that elections will always be incredibly dramatic. I'm also saying that the drama isn't such a bad thing.

I see absolutely no evidence that removing the presidency for conventions will remove drama.

Thats because you seem to have a different version of history compared to what actually happened.

I've been here and been involved with most of the history of these elections, and I simply don't think that the presidency is as big as a plague as abolitionism makes it sound.

Seems easier to have a committed member in charge of making sure these programs work because it's his job.

The problem is that its not easy to find committed members to put in charge of things of this scale, since past presidents have had difficulty getting people to even participate in certain programs.

I was talking about the president himself.

Presidents themselves have quit from the job as president, while others take on so many tasks as president that they spread themselves too thin to be able to run an event like a DDO Convention.

This is why they have an administration to help them. Even posting actual evidence of a falling program doesn't help your case here, not every candidate is bsh1 and all have different work ethics (though on the contrary I think he did rather well running his programs).

So the system I advocate preserves the one part of the presidency some people actually like (programs) while at the same time cutting down on negative drama and also establishing a more efficient means for passing reforms to the site.

You still have yet to prove how these reforms would be more efficiently ran without a committed individual in charge of running them for his entire term, as opposed to a member who has an idea, but isn't committed to long term activity and eventually lets his program die.

Lol, the Convention system doesnt deprive programs from committed individuals who want to run them.....

I'm not saying it does.

If someone wants to make and run a program, they are allowed to do so, and the Convention system even allows them to have their program be voted as 'official' to incentivize people to keep running their own program.... If however they tire of the program and dont want to run it anymore, they can hand it off to whoever they want, or they can end the program itself, and someone later could restart the same version of the program if they see some sort of value in it......

That's all fine and dandy, but this already exists with the presidency. The presidency is a role of service. You have so.eone who committed 6 months out of their life to help people better the site with programs, why not use and abuse them and their administration into helping you with it, getting it attention, putting in the work to make it effective, etc.

If I am a project designer pitching an idea, generally I am going to go over in detail how it will work, and how it benefits people more than whatever project is already in place.

Ive already made two 'walkthrough' threads about how conventions work, you just continue to ignore them as you do with any argument you dont agree with.

Understanding what conventions are and how they work doesn't demonstrate in realistic terms how they will work better than the presidency. Alternatively I am not hating on conventions. If abolitionism is accepted during this election, I am glad that programs can continue, it's more that I don't see it as a proper method of replacement.

By "people", I take it to mean just you.

I think everyone would like to see fewer spam threads on the main page, not just me. By all means though, keep changing the definitions of words themselves along with reality itself just to fit your own beliefs.

I am probably the 3rd person this week counting zmike and f-16 that you've mentioned living in a different reality. What if... your the one in a different reality?! Dun dun dun, inception. Mind blown.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Romanii
Posts: 4,852
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:17:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:12:58 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

Copy/pasted from the other thread...

1: There are zero harms involved in abolishing the presidency
2: Abolishing the presidency is fun & interesting
3: I have some reason to abolish the presidency, and no reason not to

Simple, no?

It can also be argued that Imabench's DDO Convention system is more productive than the presidency at doing... whatever the hell the presidency is supposed to do. Implement site initiatives that have the word "Official" in their names? Idk.